• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best places on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! Community members will not see the bottom screen advertisements.

The American Politics Discussion Thread

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
That's probably because not all gun owners are like that jackass Yeager.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
But the top brass of the NRA and the GOP politicians in thier pocket are, unfortunately.

And thats what sad - At first the NRA was about protecting the rights of the people but it has now put serving the intrests of big money, instead of the interests of the people.
 
14,092
Posts
14
Years
And thats what sad - At first the NRA was about protecting the rights of the people but it has now put serving the intrests of big money, instead of the interests of the people.


Just another powerful lobbyist group is all. Made up of gun manufacturers, suppliers, etc. So naturally they espouse what will benefit them monetarily.

In happier news, Hilary eviscerated Rand Paul at the Benghazi hearings. 2016 is coming, Mr. Paul, and Hilary is currently our most popular elected official, by a wide margin. History should have told the GOP that picking on a Clinton is not a smart idea.
 

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
Not to mention they act like hypocrites sometimes. They blame video games for violent acts, then they make phone apps that teach people how to shoot.

I'm not even anti-gun and I have a hard time taking them seriously.
 

Sweets Witch

I just love ham jerky.
1,388
Posts
11
Years
And thats what sad - At first the NRA was about protecting the rights of the people but it has now put serving the intrests of big money, instead of the interests of the people.

The NRA's becoming more and more about covering its own ass, just like any other big-name political influence. The only difference between the NRA and, say, Citigroup is that the NRA has a really large following.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
Just another powerful lobbyist group is all. Made up of gun manufacturers, suppliers, etc. So naturally they espouse what will benefit them monetarily.

In happier news, Hilary eviscerated Rand Paul at the Benghazi hearings. 2016 is coming, Mr. Paul, and Hilary is currently our most popular elected official, by a wide margin. History should have told the GOP that picking on a Clinton is not a smart idea.
I missed it. What did she say?
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Republican sets out to show how easy it is to commit voter fraud, hoping that it will get support for Voter ID laws - instead shows that it's not as easy as some politicians say it is.

A Nevada Republican arrested for voter fraud in the 2012 election, after claiming she was trying to test the system's integrity, pled guilty and accepted a plea deal Thursday, forcing her to pay almost $2,500 and promise to stay out of trouble.

Roxanne Rubin, 56, a casino worker on the Las Vegas Strip, was arrested on Nov. 3, 2012 after trying to vote twice, once at her poling site in Henderson and then at a second site in Las Vegas. The poll workers at the second site said that she had already voted, but Rubin said that she hadn't and insisted on casting a ballot, which the poll workers refused to allow her to do.

Rubin said that she was trying to show how easy it would be to commit voter fraud with just a signature. "This has always been an issue with me. I just feel the system is flawed," she told the AP Thursday. "If we're showing ID for everything else, why wouldn't we show our ID in order to vote?"

Rubin, like many Republicans, claim that the threat from voter fraud -- which is close to non-existent -- is why voter ID laws need to be in place. But Nevada has no voter ID law -- other than for first-time voters who didn't show ID when they registered to vote -- and she was caught anyway.

The prosecutor in the case said he knew of no other voters in Nevada or elsewhere arrested for voter fraud.

Democratic Nevada Secretary of State Ross Miller, who has called for a photo ID law, slammed Rubin in a statement. "If Ms. Rubin was trying to demonstrate how easy it is to commit voter fraud, she clearly failed and proved just the opposite," he said.

Rubin's deal requires her to pay $2,481 to the state in restitution, complete 100 hours of community service, stay out of trouble and complete an impulse control course.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/28/roxanne-rubin_n_2566297.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
Republican sets out to show how easy it is to commit voter fraud, hoping that it will get support for Voter ID laws - instead shows that it's not as easy as some politicians say it is.
Looks like they're just trying to cover all the bases in case their gerrymandering attempts fail. The party has pretty much admitted that they can't win an election fair and square. After all, more people voted for Democrats than Republicans in 2012 for the Presidency, Senate and House (by a slim margin), and it's only because of gerrymandered districts that the House is Republican controlled.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
Republicans now want to redraw the state senate district maps too.

And they also want to allocate the electoral votes by house districts.

Basically, they want to screw democrats over with the new maps, making it so that even though more democrats vote, their votes would be worth less (Or worthless. Either will work.).
 

KriegStein

Nuclear Reactor
407
Posts
11
Years
Just foun this thread. Is the main topic here the inside politics of the U.S or the outside politics? Or both? And as for the thing about senators being inadept. Of course they are. They are thinking about their career. It does not pay to start renowing things etc if you are not elected next time. As such they want to be re-elected as many times as possible. So I think they dont want to dirty their hands? And as for the more radical members. I think atleast some of them are casting for votes. You know trying to get the other radicals vote you can realy boost your career... :/
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
True - All the politicians care about is keeping their jobs, not making a better nation.

We really need a minimum approval rating or term limits for all.

Under the approval ratings, their pay would be linked to their ratings - the higher percentage their rating is, the more pay they get. If their rating is 80%, then they get 80% of their pay. Also, to this, should the ratings fall below... lets say, 40%, the their state would be allowed to automatically recall their represenatives and replace them with someone else.

Or for term limits, add term limits to congress and the senate like the presdiental seat has. To this, the limits would 4 and the presidental seat raised to that. However, they would count with each other - You serve three terms in congress/senate and one term as president and you can no longer run for either of those offices. Or one term congress/senate, three terms president. After that you can't run again. Additionally, in order to run for president, you'd have to have served at least one term in the congress/senate.

Or even better - use both plan.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
True - All the politicians care about is keeping their jobs, not making a better nation.

We really need a minimum approval rating or term limits for all.

Under the approval ratings, their pay would be linked to their ratings - the higher percentage their rating is, the more pay they get. If their rating is 80%, then they get 80% of their pay. Also, to this, should the ratings fall below... lets say, 40%, the their state would be allowed to automatically recall their represenatives and replace them with someone else.
I don't know if you're entirely serious, but this kind of proposal would just create gridlock. At least that's how it seems to me.

Let's assume that we can even get accurate approval numbers. 30-40% of people in a bunch of states are going to disapprove of their representative just based on the party they're associated with. If the representative does anything to upset their base (which in today's climate could mean as little as compromising on one issue with someone of the other party) they could easily fall below your threshold and have to be booted out. Then, depending on where you are, you'd end up with some extremist who will only listen to one end of the political spectrum and pander to keep their support, or you'd get a complete centrist populist who won't publicly commit to anything but the blandest of opinions to keep from being kicked out and we'd never know what they might vote on at any given moment.
 

KriegStein

Nuclear Reactor
407
Posts
11
Years
Scarf does have a point. I think that politicians arent the only problem...its also the voters. Some vote to make the nation better.(atleast believe in it) Some vote the same person as their friend. Some vote just for the laughs. Some vote the one they are told to vote. And some vote based on biased oppinions. So the problem is also here in the voters. I am not an American so I cannot be sure about this but, do you agree with me that there is not enough talk about politics? I mean REAL talk. What I have seen politicians only try to badmouth oneanother. And the voters do it too. They do not discuss the issues but they are making new ones with their actions. They do not even try to understand one another. This is how I see it. Maybe this is because there are 2 dominating parties in the U.S? So most of the voters are divided between them?
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
True - All the politicians care about is keeping their jobs, not making a better nation.

We really need a minimum approval rating or term limits for all.

Under the approval ratings, their pay would be linked to their ratings - the higher percentage their rating is, the more pay they get. If their rating is 80%, then they get 80% of their pay. Also, to this, should the ratings fall below... lets say, 40%, the their state would be allowed to automatically recall their represenatives and replace them with someone else.

Or for term limits, add term limits to congress and the senate like the presdiental seat has. To this, the limits would 4 and the presidental seat raised to that. However, they would count with each other - You serve three terms in congress/senate and one term as president and you can no longer run for either of those offices. Or one term congress/senate, three terms president. After that you can't run again. Additionally, in order to run for president, you'd have to have served at least one term in the congress/senate.

Or even better - use both plan.
Term limits, yes.

Tied to approval ratings, no. It shouldn't be a popularity contest. The right thing isn't always the most popular thing.
 

Mr. X

It's... kinda effective?
2,391
Posts
17
Years
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/joe-walsh-child-support-unemployed_n_2665240.html

Irony - A conservative, touting fiscal and personal responsibility, can't pay his child support and is now asking for it to be reduced.

Essentially, he wants to not be held to his fiscal and personal responsibilities.

Even better - He says his job was terminated through no voluntary act of his own. This isn't the case - He wasn't reelected because he was going a ****** job - Essentially, he was fired. And he refuses to take responsibility, instead saying that he had nothing to do with getting fired.'

Even worse by the fact that he has condemned a lot of people because they couldn't pay the bills unless they got money from the government. Funny that now he is no longer getting money from the government, he can no longer pay his bills.

tl:dr, conservative who refuses to practice what he preached.
 

TRIFORCE89

Guide of Darkness
8,123
Posts
19
Years
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/joe-walsh-child-support-unemployed_n_2665240.html

Irony - A conservative, touting fiscal and personal responsibility, can't pay his child support and is now asking for it to be reduced.

Essentially, he wants to not be held to his fiscal and personal responsibilities.

Even better - He says his job was terminated through no voluntary act of his own. This isn't the case - He wasn't reelected because he was going a ****** job - Essentially, he was fired. And he refuses to take responsibility, instead saying that he had nothing to do with getting fired.'

Even worse by the fact that he has condemned a lot of people because they couldn't pay the bills unless they got money from the government. Funny that now he is no longer getting money from the government, he can no longer pay his bills.

tl:dr, conservative who refuses to practice what he preached.
He's quite the idiot. Also, a tea partier so... probably really bad with math.

Anywho, he wasn't re-elected. He has no real voice, power, or influence. So... why give him the time day? You can come up with a bunch of dime a dozen stupid or hypocritical people of all political stripes, doesn't really mean much. Especially here. He sucked. He wasn't re-elected. The system works XD


Also, state of the union tonight. Got you popcorn ready? What are you hoping to hear?
 

Ivysaur

Grass dinosaur extraordinaire
21,082
Posts
17
Years
Okay okay I'll be the first one to post it:



I remember I also got my mouth completely dry during my job interview, but man, if you are a Senator and you still fall for this... XD
 
14,092
Posts
14
Years
Okay okay I'll be the first one to post it:



I remember I also got my mouth completely dry during my job interview, but man, if you are a Senator and you still fall for this... XD

For the man touted as the 'Republican Savior' he's not making things any easier for himself or the GOP. He voted no on the violence against women act and got grilled over his creationist viewpoints a few months ago. He's fodder for Hilary.
 
Back
Top